Guaranteed disaster

Vecteezy

One of the lines being used by those promoting the both-votes-SNP strategy is that we should all resort to this strategy in an effort to secure the overall majority which John Swinney has demanded as a condition for him taking any action on the constitutional issue. By doing this, the argument goes, we would force Swinney to make good on his guarantee to deliver a referendum.

It’s a clever argument for what is superficially a clever strategy. But as is so often the case, scraping away the glossy surface reveals the turd beneath. Two questions come immediately to mind: How meaningful is the guarantee? What exactly is being guaranteed?

The only thing John Swinney is committed to doing if he continues as First Minister after the election in May is submitting a request for a Section 30 order to temporarily and conditionally transfer powers to the Scottish Parliament that will allow it to legislate for a consultative and non-self-executing referendum on the question of whether Scotland should be an independent country.

How meaningful is Swinney’s guarantee to deliver a referendum? In fact, it is totally meaningless. At the same time as guaranteeing to deliver a referendum, Swinney proposes to concede to the British state the authority to veto a referendum. The guarantee would only be meaningful if Swinney had the last word on the matter. But he insists that Westminster must have the final say.

The act of asking for permission to hold a referendum implies acceptance of the British Prime Minister’s authority to refuse. If the British Prime Minister couldn’t refuse, what would be the point in asking?

Perhaps Swinney has in mind something other than a Section 30 referendum. But that cannot be, as he has maintained that only a Section 30 referendum would be ‘legal and constitutional’. If he has a secret plan involving an alternative way to deliver a referendum without having to request permission, I’m sure I won’t be the only one asking why he didn’t go straight to this obviously preferable method.

Not that there can be an alternative method, because if there is, then it means Swinney has been lying about Section 30 being the only way.

For us to achieve that independence, the first step is to secure a legal referendum recognised by all. In 2011 we secured that reliable and dependable route when the SNP achieved a majority of seats at Holyrood.

That is the only mechanism that has been proven to deliver such a vote - so that is what we need to deliver again.

So, the guarantee is worthless. What about the thing that is being guaranteed? Supposing the SNP achieves miracle number one by getting an overall majority of Holyrood seats. Then suppose miracle number two occurs and Starmer unexpectedly agrees to the request for a Section 30 order. What happens after John Swinney has changed his underwear?

First of all, Starmer would not simply grant the request. It would be granted subject to ‘negotiations’ between the two governments. Nonetheless, we can expect that Swinney will declare his ‘strategy’ vindicated and his guarantee honoured. Lots of people will get very excited about the prospect of a new referendum. Then, the ‘negotiations’ begin, and the celebration ends.

Starmer—or whoever is Prime Minister—will start to roll out the conditions attached to the Section 30 order. Swinney will protest. The protests will be ‘noted’. The conditions will make the referendum unwinnable. Either Swinney rejects the offered referendum, or we proceed with a referendum that we cannot win.

Since we are playing ‘just suppose’, we might as well suppose that we do win the referendum, despite the conditions attached and everything the British would throw at us in the course of the campaign. What happens then? Nothing! Nothing happens, because the Section 30 referendum has no legal or constitutional effect. It is and can only be consultative and non-self-executing. Just as Swinney gives Westminster the final say as to whether there should be a referendum, he also gives Westminster the last word on what the outcome means and what should ensue.

In principle, the British could ignore the result completely. They would be under no legal or constitutional obligation to do anything at all. Does anybody believe the moral obligation would carry any weight? As part of the agreement reached with imposed on the Scottish government, the UK government would have undertaken to respect the outcome. But respecting the result needn’t mean complying with it. They can respect the fact that the Scottish people have sent a message while interpreting that message to suit themselves.

It is not at all difficult to imagine Starmer making a statement in which he recognises that the people of Scotland are unhappy with devolution, blames it on years of SNP government, and says it’s up to us to sort it out at the next election. Alternatively, he could show respect for the result by appointing a commission to look at the whole question of devolution in the context of the UK. The one thing he certainly would not do is concede that the Union must end.

We are being urged to give both our votes in the upcoming election to the SNP on the off chance that this might give them an overall majority, so as to oblige John Swinney to request permission to hold a referendum that was made all but unwinnable by the conditions attached and which would not bring about independence even if we did win it.

Call me picky, folks! But that doesn’t sound like much of a prize.